Quote - Sorry, but removing a feature in order to fix a problem is [b]not[/b] a solution.

Depends on the context, which is why having metrics on your features is so important.  Is it really worth spending the time on fixing something no one uses?  Varies on a case by case basis.

Quote - Please fix this ASAP . (and please don't tell me that you can't.  The staff who make GIMP and FIREFOX could do it, and they work for free, so surely for-pay techies for a commercial site are more than capable of fixing something like this-- unless, by some chance, you're using craptastic software...  Which I hope is not the case.)  Couldn't you guys have at least tested this on a dummy site like most commercial sites do before implementing it? :(

Having just completed interviewing web developer hopefuls for my company, I can say you would be mighty surprised at the difference in quality that exists.

For web dev, most of the time things are coded by hand.  How the 3rd party software (such as Firefox and Internet Explorer) see it, is a different matter.  So a web dev has to change thier code, because rarely are they going to be able to change the client.

And yes, for professional development typically there is a Source Control Management system, and one or more development enviroments prior to Production.  It comes down to having code you can test, and achiving a high test coverage area through a combination of automation and manual testing.  Only if the build (all the recent changes) pass testing do they get deployed.